Tag Archives: Climate Crisis

Ending The Climate Crisis – clearly also a Matter of Methodology

A desperate challenge: How to make our climate endeavours effective?

“What’s stopping us stopping Climate Change?” asks a discussion event on the Climate Crisis in the UK in September 2023.

We can understand the question as a part of an evaluation process of our global climate action over the last years and decades.

Evidently, from the perspective of many people around the world the situation is utterly distressing. All efforts by governments, international organisations, NGOs, research institutes, activists, and writers, urging us to take action, have not and appear unlikely to achieve what we urgently need to achieve according to the international climate agreements, i.e., limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

Instead, we presently are on the way to a 2.7°C degree warmer world, “on the highway to climate hell with our foot on the accelerator”, as António Guterres, General Secretary of the UN warns us^[1]. Global CO2 emissions are still rising, instead of falling. Some experts are even already suggesting that we cannot achieve the 1.5°C goal anymore, that we risk exceeding also the 2°C goal already by 2050, and that now every tenth of a degree counts.^[2]^{,^[3]}

This dire situation bluntly confronts us with the question why all our climate efforts so far are not delivering the required results? Or, to flip the question around, what is now necessary for us to end the Climate Crisis or to at least deal “adequately” with it, however we may have to define this term in detail.

The Climate Crisis – The most complex problem humanity has ever faced

Identifying why a problem-solving process, which we have put in place, is not working, is often not easy. We may not have a clue. Our personal experiences and perspectives are limited. To get more clarity on what might be wrong with our strategies, we will involve more people and ask for their different insights. The same is necessary with respect to our endeavours to stop Climate Change.

As part of such a consultation and judging from a background in policy analysis and systemic problem-solving methodologies, I would like to suggest that there is a fundamental reason for our failure to end the Climate Crisis, beyond the many technological, economic, political impediments and even philosophical questions which the problem inherently confronts us with: Our efforts lack methodology. The Climate Crisis is probably the most complex problem humanity has ever faced.

The rationality of our actions, however, is limited or “bounded” as Management Science puts it, due to “inadequate information, cognitive limitations inherent in the human mind, and time constraints”.[4] In other words, the first reason why the rationality of our problem solving strategies is faulty is the fact that we do not possess enough information to judge a complex problem adequately, we frequently even do not realise that there are additional aspects to a problem, which we have not recognised yet and often only discover in hindsight. Second, we, our organisations and societies as a whole are not smart enough to assess a complex problem adequately, and third, we do not invest enough time and endeavour to assess a complex problem thoroughly enough. As a result of these shortcomings, we do not manage to structure and solve complex problems in a sound and effective fashion. To guide our thinking in our efforts to solve such complex problems, Management Science, therefore, equips us with “rational problem-structuring methodologies”.[5] Problem-structuring methods help us to understand the nature of a problem more precisely and enable us to develop more effective problem-solutions.[6]

The need for a systemic problem-structuring approach

From my perspective we only then will stand a chance at all to handle a problem of such immense dimensions and complexity as the Climate Crisis adequately, if we take recourse to a sound systemic problem-structuring approach for designing our strategies and actions, be it as governments, international organisations, NGOs, policy research institutes, climate scientists, or simply as concerned citizens who are desperately asking themselves how they can contribute to the solution of the problem.

Of course, to develop the best strategies, we must investigate whether there are any other and even better methodologies available than the systemic problem-structuring method I suggest. I am convinced of its usefulness, however, for determining rational problem solutions. It appears inherently logical in that it demands that we thoroughly verify the exact goal which we need and want to pursue and then links necessary strategies and actions precisely to the definition of our goal. If our measures do not work, one reason very often seems to be that both, the understanding of the goals we need to pursue and the formulation of our strategies are somewhat fuzzy. Its simplicity appears a further advantage of the methodology.

What is a “systemic problem-structuring approach”?

Systems Thinking means many things to many people and lots of books have been written about it. The following is, therefore, the briefest of overviews incorporating the buildings blocks I find most useful and important.

A systemic problem-structuring approach is based on “Systems Thinking”, the understanding that all systems in our societies are “systems of systems”, just like our bodies, in which all elements are interdependent. The precise purpose of a system determines which elements a system needs exactly for it to function and to fulfil its purpose. Both, a limousine, and a tractor are vehicles, but they evidently need somewhat different elements to serve their specific tasks. Standard elements needed by any system are “control” originating in the driver behind the system, and communication. Effective communication is required between the system, its control system and any other stakeholders outside of the system, and between the different elements within the system themselves. As the example of a car illustrates, for a system to perform well each of its elements or sub-systems needs to work well. No system will function in an effective manner, if its control system does not work properly.

A systemically sound problem solution will mirror these principles. To develop it, the following basic steps are required[7]:

Analysis of, and agreement on our problem situation.
Precise goal verification and definition. (If we do not understand and define the necessary goal of our actions properly, our efforts will go off in the wrong direction and be wasted. We cannot underestimate the importance of this step for the effectiveness of our efforts.)
Identification of all factors influencing the achievement of our goals.
Design of strategic options incorporating these factors.
Decision on the best strategy.
Implementation – by building effective systems and processes which reflect the “factor analysis” in step 3.
Evaluation and, if necessary, start of the process from the beginning.

Ultimately, what the approach suggests appears to be plain and simple logic, the need to analyse a problem situation in detail, the need then to identify the necessary goal resulting from this assessment, furthermore the need to identify and analyse all factors affecting the achievement of our goal, to only mention the three core steps of the problem-structuring process. What the approach does for us is to show us the way through the necessary problem-solving process, it gives our problem-solving process a structure, like the timber-frame of a house, instead of us having to come up with the logically sensible sequence of steps ourselves. The approach helps us to make sure we do not forget essential elements on our way to solving a problem.

A fundamental understanding behind the approach is that, as discussed above, our individual thinking, experiences, training, and perspectives are naturally limited. A precondition to both, verifying the exact goal of our actions and identifying all factors which influence the achievement of our goals, therefore, is comprehensive consultation, the inclusion of as many people with diverse perspectives in our problem-solving process as possible.

A natural human inclination is to reject and exclude people with different perspectives and opinions from our problem-solving processes. Governments, therefore, often operate on the basis of “group think”, they rely on the opinions of politicians with similar backgrounds and like-minded thinking.[8] This is counterproductive, and even negligent in the light of the complexity of our world. For effective problem-solving we must actively draw in different opinions and thoroughly examine, rather than rebuff them. If governments in their work or we in our personal endeavours to protect the world pursue problem solutions which are driven by personal perceptions and convictions only, possibly even by ideologies, rather than being shaped by a comprehensive consultation and rational analysis of the specific goals we need to pursue and of the different factors relevant for their achievement, then our problem solution will not work.

What does the application of the systemic problem-structuring approach suggested generate for our situation?

Analysis of the problem situation

The first step, the analysis of the problem scenario, will probably provide the following observations:

The climate situation is extremely urgent. If we do not generate effective strategies now, we are likely to miss our critical temperature goal by far. With this we appear to be on the way to generate utter chaos in the world and, as we are told, existential risks for civilisation, millions, if not billions of people might die. Timothy Lenton from Exeter University warns for example jointly with other climate scientists that even at temperature increases between 1° and 2° C we are increasingly risking exceeding “tipping points”, barriers which set a cascade-style, self-enhancing global warming process into motion which once it has begun cannot be controlled anymore. From this, they declare, arises “an existential threat to civilization.”[9]
All our initiatives and actions are ineffective, they are not generating what we need to achieve, they do not succeed in making governments and international institutions implement effective climate policies suitable to limit global warming to 1.5° C and to solve the Climate Crisis.

To suggest some examples:

For years the climate NGO Extinction Rebellion (XR) has been calling for governments to tell the truth, they have not done it.[10]
“Friends of the Earth” and other UK NGOs have been suing the UK government to present an effective plan to reach the national climate goals.[11] Again, they have not done it. Focusing on our national governments only also neglects the global dimension of the Climate Crisis, it does not make sure that the world as a whole reaches the 1.5° goal.
Over the years and decades climate scientists have consistently been calling on governments to take action to avert the risk of destruction from civilisation. Oxford University writes on its website in 2019 for example: “Leading Oxford climate scientists today insisted there can be no doubt that human-driven climate change is a fact and urgent action is needed…”[12] Yet, governments continue their paths and global CO² emissions are still rising.
- Since 2018 Greta Thunberg and Fridays for Future have been calling for more effective climate action by governments, more specifically, “to maintain the rise of global temperatures to below 1.5°C, to ensure climate justice and equity, and to listen to the best united science available.”[13] Despite these demands we are on the way to a 3°C warmer world. In their reactions governments even admit that “not nearly enough has been done to tackle Climate Change”, but still do not enhance climate efforts in line with requirements.[14]
- Climate activists from organisations like “Just Stop Oil” in the UK and the “Last Generation” in Germany glue themselves to roads and stop traffic. This annoys the public but does not make them support or demand effective climate policies from governments. The actions evidently also do not make governments take adequate action to achieve the 1.5° goal.
- Many persons and organisations around the world take similar actions, without, however, those actions leading to an end of the Climate Crisis.
The problem we are dealing with is extremely complex, probably the most complex problem humanity has ever faced. Solving it requires a fundamental change in how we, humanity, live on earth. In as far as possible we must renounce on all activities which emit CO²; all production, transportation, travel, and commute must largely be turned to CO²– free processes. For a CO² neutral way of living, any remaining CO² emissions must be removed from the atmosphere through the development and deployment of suitable technologies. As experts like the leading climate scientist James Hansen underline, we even may have to resort to “temporary solar radiation management (SRM)” …”via the purposeful injection of atmospheric aerosols”, i.e., the creation of artificial “clouds” [15], or through other technological interventions in the atmosphere to reflect sunlight into space, a sort of futuristic scenario. According to Hansen, the “risks of such intervention” would have to be defined, as well as the “risks of no intervention”.[16]
As Stephen Hawking told us already in 2016, the solution of the Climate Crisis and of other huge challenges our world is facing, demands “more than at any time in our history”, that “our species needs to work together”, in other words, peace and the highly effective co-operation of all of humanity, presently eight billion people, are required.[17] In the light of the existential risks for civilisation from Climate Change now any war in the world appears a crime against humanity. We must create peace and stop the destruction of valuable resources through these conflicts.
The change to a generally sustainable way of living in line with the resources which our planet offers will cost huge amounts of resources. As Hawking declares, “with resources increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, we are going to have to learn to share far more than at present”.[18] Concretely, this means those who own the required resources will have to pay for the necessary adaptation processes. This requirement even runs against human nature and greed, it will necessitate a rethinking of our philosophies and attitudes.
Moreover, with humanity having delayed necessary measures to stop Climate Change by decades, now all actions need to be more drastic than they would have to be had we started earlier.

All these aspects more are connected in one way or another to the Climate Crisis and need to be addressed to stop Climate Change.

The image below tries to describe the complexity of the Climate Crisis problem in the form of a map in which the aspects of relevance affecting the stopping of climate change are represented as dots. In this figure the interconnecting lines are rather randomly drawn and simply meant to highlight the multiple interconnections between the aspects of relevance for the Climate Crisis. For effective climate policy making a comprehensive and precise analysis of the interconnections between individual factors is required. The overall number of points shown in the map, i.e., the number of aspects of relevance for solving the Climate Crisis, is by no means complete.

Our path to the problem solution

How do we find our route through this maze?

The systemic problem-solving approach appears to suggest the path highlighted in the map. Like in any passage through an unknown terrain, the route is first and foremost determined by the location, the aim which we must reach and which we are heading to. It is also defined by the points we must pass to get to this goal. The points on the path suggested on the “map” reflect what appears to be a logical sequence of factors which influence our goal achievement. We can also call the path a “challenge parcourse” to emphasise the need to complete a specific task at every step for us to be able to move forward to the next one. To understand the inherent logic of the path, I suggest looking at it backwards, from the goal, which we need to achieve, to the beginning.

1. Goal Definition

As regards the goal of our climate actions, the image suggests formulating it, at least to begin with, as “dealing adequately with the Climate Crisis”.

Such a wide initial goal formulation points to the need to, as a first step, verify and confirm precisely what our problem situation is to get everyone on board. As mentioned, NGOs like Extinction Rebellion (ER) have been calling on governments to “tell the truth”, i.e., to inform the people properly on the state of Climate Change and its implications. So far, the call has been in vain, our governments have not complied with it. Where governments fail to install an effective information system, we, civil society, must fill in. Once people have a joint understanding of the character and urgency of the problem, we can agree on more concrete goals, such as the 1.5° goal. While many observers suggest that, approaching the end of 2023, we have already surpassed it, others contend that reaching it “will save millions of people and it’s still feasible”. People already suffering from climate change would be “beseeching world leaders to hold global temperature rise to 1.5°C.”[19]

Given that the more we approach 2°C, the more we also increase our risk of hitting “tipping points”, points from where on the planet self-amplifies global warming and developments could get out of control, we probably simply ought to agree on stopping emitting greenhouse gases as soon as only possible while using all global resources available to achieve this aim. If we are already close to or above 1.5° of warming this means we have basically no leeway whatsoever left. We, humanity, need to consult openly and frankly about how to handle this situation.

2. The need for an extremely effective problem-solving or steering system

What are the factors affecting the achievement of this general goal, the “adequate handling of the climate crisis” in this global emergency situation?

Given the urgency of the problem and the overall complexity of the problem situation, including the physical developments in our natural environment and all other aspects determining how we, humanity, deal with the challenges – up to the potentially necessary interventions in the atmosphere to reflect sunlight mentioned above and their assessment – it becomes clear that we cannot solve the Climate Crisis without an extremely competent and effective problem-solving and steering system, to lead us through the complex problem terrain. (Point IV. in the image). That steering system is normally our government. I suggest understanding the governments in our nations concretely as “systems to identify, weigh, and manage public policy problems – in consultation and cooperation with the citizens”.

The image highlights that the effectiveness of our steering systems or governments in dealing with a problem is determined by two factors: Their willingness and their capability to deal with a given problem. If we want an effective steering system and an effective climate policy, we must ensure that our governments are both, willing and capable, to deal with such an extremely complex problem as the Climate Crisis.

3. The need for effective citizen control and pressure

This brings us to the need for effective pressure by the citizens on our governments, so they implement effective climate action. It also leads us to the need for effective “control” over our governments to ensure they are capable to deal with the climate crisis (Point III in the path).

UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak just now, in September 2023, reduced the climate policy commitments of the nation, suggesting that there was a danger of “losing the consent of the British people” over a more stringent climate policy. [20] This highlights that government policy in a democracy is largely determined by the preferences of the people. If we want an effective climate policy, we need to ensure that the overwhelming majority of the people demand, rather than reject it, even if it requires sacrifices.

Moreover, Sunak’s statement highlights the critical relevance of leadership capacity especially in an emergency: A government with the ability to convince the population of the necessity even of painful measures will be able to generate and maintain the consent of the people to the required measures. When Churchill, in May 1940, heading his newly formed all-party government, declared to parliament and society in the UK that he had “nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat”, people followed him.[21] The Climate Crisis with existential yet not clearly noticeable threats looming over entire humanity requires leadership of an even higher calibre.

Democracy ultimately is government “by the people”, as one of the criteria coined by Abraham Lincoln. Through exerting effective control over our political system, we, the people, must ensure that our governments possess optimal government and leadership capabilities. Otherwise, we cannot handle the Climate Crisis adequately, we cannot stop it.

A reason why demands and protests by NGOs and climate protesters for effective climate policies have not generated the necessary results appears to be the fact the protesters so far failed to recognise the importance of and to implement effective strategies to ensure these two necessary factors are “in place”, the willingness and the capacity of governments for designing and introducing effective climate policies.

4. The need for an “effective information and motivation system”

If we want to create effective pressure and control by the citizens on, or over, our governments, we must understand the factors determining it.

As we recognise, the power of the people and their effectiveness in exerting pressure on and control over their governments, depends on the number of people exerting such pressure or control, and on their knowledge about what exactly they, we all, must do and demand to solve the Climate Crisis. To generate democratic majorities for the required climate policies, we formally need at least more than fifty percent of the people to call for them. But this ultimately does not suffice. To avoid polarisation in our societies and to ensure the effectiveness of the necessary climate policies we rather must aim for the support of the large majority of the population for the required climate measures, ideally for a consensus in our societies on their inevitability.

To generate such support for effective climate policies and the necessary pressure on the government to implement them, we need to inform citizens adequately. Following Checkland and Scholes who describe systemic problem solving as a “transformation process”[22], we need to create an “effective information and motivation system” (point II in the chart) with the aim to turn “passive citizens” into “active citizens”, so they engage and join the action suggested in the problem-solving path to generate effective climate policies.

Presently we do not have such an effective information system in place. As we discussed, some activists try to generate more action by gluing themselves to roads or by blocking other public infrastructure objects, such as bridges. This strategy appears counterproductive in that it turns off citizens rather than convincing them to take action. It also does not tell people what precisely we all must aim for, demand, and do to stop the Climate Crisis.

Generally, as Jonathan Freedland also describes in the Guardian, the information strategies by NGOs appear faulty and ineffective. He suggests that through their ineffectiveness the climate movement is “part of the problem too”, “they have not been communicating the threat (from the Climate Crisis) loudly enough or in the right way”, their terminology is “simply not understood by the wider public”. Freedland proposes that the climate community “must deploy whatever tools work to push a double message: both fear and hope. Fear for all the beauty, life and lives that will be lost from a parched planet – and hope that we still have time to avert the worst.”^{^[23]}

As our systemic analysis shows, Freedland is on the right path. Yet also his efforts have not produced the necessary results, so far, they have not been translated into an effective communication strategy by the climate movement. The publication of suggestions alone evidently does not suffice as a strategy to move us forward either. To move forward we need to take suitable action to create an “effective citizen information and motivation system” on the Climate Crisis. To give clout to such an endeavour it appears to make sense to convince the NGOs to change their strategies and for them to join in the sketched path towards effective climate policies.

It is encouraging that also a leading climate scientist like James Hansen, who testified in Congress in the US in 1988 about the dangers of Climate Change, confirms the urgent need for sound information for the public. As Hansen writes in November 2023: “A climate characterized by delayed response and amplifying feedbacks is especially dangerous because the public and policymakers are unlikely to make fundamental changes in world energy systems until they see visible evidence of the threat. Thus, it is incumbent on scientists to make this situation clear to the public as soon as possible.”[24] NGOs, climate scientists, activists, communication specialists, social media experts, psychologists, everyone concerned needs to work together to set up the effective information and motivation system required for the public around the world.

5. The concerned citizens as the “project drivers”

Any project needs a driver for it to go ahead and to be successful.

As becomes clear, the starting point in the suggested problem-solving path at the top of the image are we, the “concerned citizens”, those of us who cannot bear the news about the effects of extreme weather events and their devastating consequences all over the world anymore, those who are all too aware of the urgency and the existential threat of the Climate Crisis and of the need to take effective action. We need to take the initiative to set the described problem-solving process in motion. (Point I on the path, the starting point.)

As a first step we need to create the effective “information and motivation system” required in our nations to convince sufficient citizens to join our efforts. As many citizens as possible must then exert effective pressure and control over our governments, so they are willing and capable to design and implement effective climate policies. We must be careful, however. “Effective pressure” cannot mean that we or Climate NGOs push specific strategies through at all costs. It rather means pressure on governments to establish effectivepolicy making processes, including sound processes for the involvement of and consultation with wider society, to generate effective climate policies.

Some additional observations

What has been presented so far is only the barebone concept. Due to the manifold system levels and interconnections between the different issues many more aspects than those discussed appear of relevance.

How to ensure the utmost capability of governments?

A central open question is how to ensure the utmost capacity of governments, necessary for them to solve the climate crisis effectively together with the citizens. Achieving this goal requires a whole set of purpose-oriented actions on its own.

As Systems Thinking tells us and we now know, the first thing we need to do to ensure the effectiveness of our governments is to identify the factors affecting this specific goal. What are they?

Subject to review and discussion, I suggest they are:

The equipment of our “steering systems” or governments with the necessary resources.
Their equipment with the most committed and most intelligent staff a society can muster. (This includes our politicians.)
The utmost effectiveness of all processes in the political system.
The power of the governments to implement the required climate policies also against external, powerful interests.

Clearly, to equip our governments with the necessary resources required for them to function well, we must pay sufficient taxes and our economic circumstances must allow it. Countries whose economic systems do not function will have a harder time to make their governments effective. They will need support.

The second factor suggested affecting the performance of our governments, the selection of the most committed and capable staff, underlines that our current selection processes for our politicians, the elections which we hold, do not fulfil our requirements. We generally consider our election processes as given, but around the world they regularly result in the appointment of leaders who lack the integrity and professional qualifications to lead our nations and the world, in some cases blatantly so. A starting point for the solution of this problem would be to have public debates on the personal and professional qualifications required by our leaders, so we have a better idea which persons we can entrust the leadership of our nations and the world and who to elect. We should then also investigate in which way we can alter our selection processes for our politicians, so we get the leaders we require.

Further core processes determining the quality of climate policies are the strategy making and decision-making processes within a government system. A 2012 inquiry by the UK Parliament led to the following conclusion: “ We have little confidence that Government policies are informed by a clear, coherent strategic approach, itself informed by a coherent assessment of the public’s aspirations and their perceptions of the national interest… This has led to mistakes which are becoming evident in such areas as the Strategic Defence and Security Review (carrier policy), energy (electricity generation and renewables) and climate change”![25]

A lack of a “clear and coherent approach”? In plain language the Parliamentarians are saying that strategy-making in government is highly unprofessional and harms the nation substantially. Confirming the observation by Parliament on blatant deficits in strategy making by government the distinguished UK political scientists Anthony King and Ivor Crewe write in their account of the severe blunders UK governments have consistently committed over the past decades: “For all the fashionable talk about “prime ministerial power” and “presidentialism”, the truth is that looked at close up, British government turns out to be more chaotic than dictatorial”. ^[26]Governments in other democratic nations are likely to suffer from comparable shortcomings, due to similar construction principles in their political systems.

On one hand government blunders will be the result of the complexity of the challenges which governments are dealing with. On the other hand, they are caused by governments, whose politicians are not sufficiently trained and qualified for their tasks, and by strategy and policy making processes which do not function properly.

In a time when nations and the world face huge crises, instability, and conflicts, and when the Climate Crisis and the extinction of species even put civilisation at risk, we cannot afford chaotic governments and policy blunders, we must ensure that the necessary preconditions for government effectiveness are in place. For climate organisations to constantly demand effective climate policies from governments which lack the necessary capacity to design and implement policies of the required quality, without, however, taking suitable measures to mend these deficiencies, does not make sense and does not move us forward.

Regarding any “powerful interests” which might stand in the way of effective climate policies, we realise that the more citizens get involved in backing effective climate policies and in ensuring the effectiveness of our governments, the more certain will it be that such interests can be overcome and that policies necessary to protect the conditions of living on earth will be implemented.

A “Citizens’ Association for Effective Democracy”

As we noted above, all projects need effective drivers for them to be successful.

A concrete suggestion at this point, therefore, must be for us as citizens to create a “Citizens’ Association for Effective Democracy” in our nations which consults with society about exactly how to make government and the political system in general effective and which implements the necessary measures. Without such an effective driver we cannot ensure the effectiveness of our governments and we are unlikely to get a climate policy of the quality we need. Many people presently make suggestions for the improvement of policy making in government. The problem is that those proposals are not evaluated and implemented due to the lack of an independent organisation or “system” outside of government responsible for these tasks.

While the systemic need for “effective control” implies the necessity of a long-term citizens’ organisation ensuring the effectiveness of a democratic government, the realisation of this suggestion will be difficult. It requires a change in thinking of the public about their role in democracy. A simpler version of such a driver, which can be implemented quickly as an initial solution, would be the creation of an “Initiative for Government Effectiveness”by senior politicians and other persons. Operating beyond party affiliations, this initiative should examine and implement the measures required to ensure the necessary government capacity for dealing with such a complex problem as the Climate Crisis.

The creation of a “Government Performance Management System” as an instant measure

One general problem causing the blunders in government policy making observed by King and Crewe is the common perception by political leaders that they can govern simply based on personal perception and preferences.[27] Yet governing a nation of millions or hundreds of millions of people in a world of eight billion people clearly is an extremely complex task. To govern effectively, a head of government needs an effective system to examine the question what proper government precisely means and entails. Governing societies of millions of citizens and a world of eight billion people without such a system must even be considered negligent.

While a citizens’ organisation looking into the factors relevant for effective government would probably identify a “Government Performance Management System” as a central systemically necessary precondition for effective government, we cannot wait for such an organisation to be created and operational. In the light of the Climate Crisis looming over us and in the light of the many other problems our world is facing, ensuring optimal government capacity and operations through an effective “Government Performance Management System” is a matter of the greatest urgency.

Governments around the world, therefore, should already install such a system on their own initiative, without waiting for a citizen control system to point out its necessity. Politicians, pundits, the suggested initiative for government effectiveness by senior politicians, and finally also NGOs demanding an effective climate policy should call for such a system. If the British government had an effective “Government Performance Management System” in place, it would probably already be able to fix the serious deficits in its strategy making processes which Parliament identified already in 2012. For such a Government Performance Management System to be effective it appears evident that it also must comply with the systemic principles discussed in this paper.

The international dimension

Ultimately, everything we suggest here concerning the effectiveness of climate policy making has an international dimension. This dimension often appears neglected in our focus on national climate targets. At the same time, one often hears in private conversations that our nations would be emitting only a fraction of global CO² emissions. One-sided national endeavours would be of no use, unless other, larger nations would go ahead with effective steps in stopping the CO² emissions caused by them.

As Hawking points out and we underlined above, our success in solving the Climate Crisis and also the other huge problems humanity is facing including the extinction of species, poverty and inequality, as well as the over-exploitation of the planet’s resources in general, in fact depends on the entire population of the globe co-operating more intensely than ever before in the history of mankind and on governments around the world providing the necessary leadership. Yet, people in all democratic nations experience similar problems with the lack of willingness and capability of their governments to implement effective policies.

The people in all nations, at least in the democratic nations (also China declares that it is a democratic nation, albeit of a one-party character), must, therefore, in as much as only possible set the process for effective climate policy making described here in place. Rather than objecting to effective climate policies, they must jointly demand them from their governments. People in all nations must as well aim to ensure that their governments possess the necessary capacity to handle the enormous complexity of the Climate Crisis.

If we look around, the state of many governments in the world appears in fact catastrophic. Implementing effective global climate policy together with them appears difficult, if not impossible. We clearly need combined international efforts to establish effective governments also in these nations.

Ultimately, we need to reach out to all concerned citizens in the world for them to take – in as far as their circumstances only allow – the steps described in the suggested problem-solving path and to drive the necessary global climate co-operation forward.

To achieve this goal, we should also create a suitable driver, which we could call a “World Citizens’ Movement for Effective Climate Policy”, or maybe more widely, a “Global Citizens’ Movement to Protect the Planet”. Such a movement would present an inspiring umbrella for all concerned citizens around the globe to team-up and join in the necessary global co-operation on the Climate Crisis.

Conclusion

The aim to stop Climate Change and to solve the Climate Crisis confronts us with gigantic challenges. One of the central ones is the creation of co-operation of humanity on a level never seen before in the history of mankind. Especially in a time when we experience many conflicts around the world, the challenge of creating such a level of co-operation appears daunting. Many people will hold that achieving the required level of co-operation among eight billion people on earth is impossible given human greed and the widely entrenched competition between nations for economic, political, and military dominance.

But ultimately, when the alternative for humanity is to “cooperate or perish” as Antonio Guterres puts it, if it is “either a Climate Solidarity Pact – or a Collective Suicide Pact” [28], the choice appears clear. We must indeed create co-operation between all people of the world on a scale never seen before, as Hawking suggested already in 2016. We should trust that it is possible to achieve it – why wouldn’t it? – and start working.

Given the enormous dimensions and complexity of the Climate Crisis we must make all our efforts as effective and efficient as only conceivable from now on. Identifying our goals clearly and checking our strategies against the systemic yardsticks discussed will help us in achieving that goal.

Our discussion of the systemic problem-solving path generates a concrete plan for action. We must ensure that our problem-solving systems, our governments, operate with the highest degree of willingness and capacity conceivable so they can work successfully in the global fight against the climate crisis.

The concrete measures required to achieve this aim are:

The creation of workgroups consisting of concerned citizens, climate scientists, NGO representatives, communication experts and other persons with relevant know-how in our towns which generate an effective information package and set up an effective information and motivation system for citizens in our nations and around the world so citizens fully understand the seriousness of the climate situation, demand effective climate policies, and support any efforts required in making government effective.
The creation of a “World Citizens’ Movement for Effective Climate Policy”, as a home for citizens around the world wanting to join in these efforts.
The creation of an effective initiative by elder politicians and other experts as a short-term solution to fix some evident performance deficits in our governments, such as the chaos and deficits in strategy making in the UK government observed by scholars and Parliament.
The creation of effective “Government Performance Management Systems” based on systemic principles in democratic governments around the globe as an instant and central step to enhancing government effectiveness.

Even if the systemic approach and the four-point action plan presented here might appear absolutely rational and logical by establishing a clear link between the goals we need to achieve and the action we need to take, we still need to jointly assess it and consult on its validity. If we still have doubts, we need to work with the highest priority on finding a more effective approach as soon as only possible. If we agree on the soundness of the approach, we need to embark on it, with all available energy without any delay whatsoever.

This brings us to the ultimate precondition for our success in solving the climate crisis: Consultation. Given the urgency of the situation, we, the concerned citizens all around the world, everyone engaged in fighting the climate crisis, must get together from now on in regular consultations. We must evaluate our actions and focus on the central topic “How to end the Climate Crisis”? If we do not clarify the approach necessary to protect the planet and how to end the Climate Crisis, we cannot achieve our goals.

[1] António Guterres, Secretary-General’s remarks to High-Level opening of COP27, 7 November 2022, United Nations, https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2022-11-07/secretary-generals-remarks-high-level-opening-of-cop27

^[2]Cf. for example: Cyrielle CABOT, ‘Every tenth of a degree matters’: UN climate report is a call for action, not despair, France24, 22 March 2023, https://www.france24.com/en/environment/20230322-every-tenth-of-a-degree-matters-un-climate-report-is-a-call-for-action-not-despairCLIMATE CRISIS;

[3] The information on the 2°C goal is from: Hansen et alii, Global warming in the pipeline, Oxford Open Climate Change, Volume 3, Issue 1, 2023, https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889

[4] CF. Tsaoussi, A. (2021). Bounded Rationality. In: Marciano, A., Ramello, G.B. (eds) Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_106-2

[5] Cf. for example the overview by: Jonathan Rosenhead, What’s the Problem? An Introduction to Problem Structuring Methods, Interfaces 26: 6 November-December 1996, pp. 117-131, and also the volume: Jonathan Rosenhead and John Mingers (Editors), Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited, Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict, Second Edition, Chichester, 2001

[6] Cf. Rosenhead, 1996

[7] This is a very abbreviated and slightly modified rendition of the problem-structuring approach described in Hans Ulrich and Gilbert Probst, “Ganzheitliches Denken und Handeln”, “Integrated Thinking and Action”, Ein Brevier für Führungskräfte, “A Breviary for Leaders”, Haupt, Bern, 1995. The subtitle “A Breviary for Leaders” is noteworthy in that it evidently highlights the understanding of Ulrich and Probst that our leaders in politics and business cannot operate effectively without constant reliance on the systemic principles described in the book.

[8] Cf. for example: Matthew Syed, Rebel Ideas, The Power of Diverse Thinking, London, 2019

[9] Timothy M. Lenton et alii, Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against, The growing threat of abrupt and irreversible climate changes must compel political and economic action on emissions. Comment, Nature 575, 592-595 (2019), doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-03595-0

[10] Cf. https://extinctionrebellion.uk/the-truth/

[11] Cf. for example: https://goodlawproject.org/update/net-zero-ii-launch/

^[12] Oxford climate scientists: No doubt about climate change., University of Oxford, News and Events, https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-08-09-oxford-climate-scientists-no-doubt-about-climate-change, accessed 28 November 2023

[13] https://fridaysforfuture.org/what-we-do/our-demands/, accessed 1 December 2012

^[14] Michael Gove admits Government ‘not nearly enough’ has been done to tackle Climate change, ITV News, 23 April 2019, https://www.itv.com/news/2019-04-23/gove-admits-government-must-act-as-climate-change-protesters-reach-parliament

[15] Hansen et alii, 2023, Chapter “Perspective on Policy Implications”

[16] Ibid.

[17] Stephen Hawking, This is the most dangerous time for our planet, The Guardian, 1 December 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/01/stephen-hawking-dangerous-time-planet-inequality

[18] Ibid.

[19] Amy Martin, Meeting the 1.5°C Climate Goal Will Save Millions of People, and It’s Still Feasible, Opinion, Scientific American, 20 November 2023, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meeting-the-1-5-c-climate-goal-will-save-millions-of-people-and-its-still-feasible/

[20] Pippa Crerar, Fiona Harvey and Kiran Stacey, Rishi Sunak announces U-turn on key green targets, The Guardian, 21 September 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/20/rishi-sunak-confirms-rollback-of-key-green-targets

[21] cf. for the quote: International Churchill Society, https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1940-the-finest-hour/blood-toil-tears-sweat/, accessed 21 September 2023

[22]Peter Checkland and Jim Scholes, Soft Systems Methodology in Action, John Wiley and Sons, 1990, p.p. 34

[23] Jonathan Freedland, As heat records break, the climate movement has the right answers – but the words are all wrong. The Guardian, 14 July 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/14/big-oil-climate-crisis-fossil-fuel-public

[24] Hansen et alii, 2023

[25] House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee, Summary of Report: Strategic thinking in Government: without National Strategy, can viable Government strategy emerge?, Twenty Fourth Report of Session 2010–12 , Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence, Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 17 April 2012

[26] Anthony King and Ivor Crewe, The Blunders of our Governments, Oneworld Publications, London, 2013, p.314

[27] Cf. King and Crewe, pp. 255

[28] António Guterres, 2022

Governments on trial for the destruction of the earth? – Creating democratic policy making systems for a new age

Leave a reply

Imagine, 5 young people, a couple of parents, and two childrens’ organizations in the US – Kids vs Global Warming and the Wild Earth Guardians – are suing the mighty U.S. government.[1] The case is of the utmost relevance to all of us, all citizens of the world, wherever we might live. And actually, it should be brought forward against all governments on earth, if only to raise awareness of the issue: The young people want to force the U.S. government to immediately implement policies which stop the destruction of the earth from global warming. More concretely they demand policies which reduce annual CO² emissions, so the world is maintained at current temperatures.

Defendants in the case are various top members of the U.S. government including the secretaries for the interior, for energy, and defense, and the administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Amazingly and probably for legal reasons, the President himself has not been charged, even if in the eyes of society the head of state of a nation certainly is the main person responsible for government policy making.

In the first round of litigation the case was dismissed by a court in Washington D.C. The plaintiffs filed for appeal of the decision in the U.S. court of appeals in June 2013. At present the case is gaining more and more support by experts and organizations within the U.S. Key scientific advisers for the plaintiffs are a team of scientists around the reputable U.S. climatologist James Hansen including the economist Jeffrey Sachs. The team puts severe considerations forward suggesting that the current climate goal pursued by the international community, the aim to limit the temperature rise at 2ᵒC, more than twice the amount of global warming already incurred over the last 100 years, is far too dangerous and irresponsible[2]. All in all, the situation is even far more critical than these numbers suggest, since it is by no means certain that our international governments will even achieve the more lenient target set by them.[3]

So how should we judge the case against the U.S. government?

Increasing public perception on the facts of global warming

First of all we have to highly welcome the litigation, because it generates publicity for this issue of the highest relevance to all of us and of even existential importance for future generations.

Many, if not most of us, have not realized it yet or still have doubts, but all evidence, generated by the probably largest and most comprehensive research effort the world has ever jointly undertaken, confirms: Our behavior, billions of people around the globe relentlessly burning fossil fuels, is, with all likelihood, causing the destruction of the earth. A report written by more than 250 scientists from 39 countries around the world which took into consideration more than 50000 publications and commentaries from scientists all around the world confirmed those risks in September 2013.[4] Our behavior threatens to increase global temperatures by about 5ᵒC by the end of the century, it is in the process of changing weather patterns and living conditions all over the world, it is causing desertification, and floods, as well as the rise of the sea level in the world, which could well increase by 20 meters over the coming centuries or millenia[5]. If we allow this to happen, the sea will flood large parts of the earth, land and urban agglomerations, directly affecting the life of a large share of the global population and indirectly the entire global population. Finally the warming caused by us threatens to extinguish up to 50% of all species on the earth already by the end of this century, which, because of the interdependence of all life on earth, must have gravely deleterious impacts on the quality of human life on earth as well.

If we still do not believe that this is the case, we are not entitled to rely on random newspaper publications to inform us. If some of the most acknowledged scientists in the world tell us that we are causing the destruction of the earth and that urgent action is necessary to protect it, we must take such a statement extremely seriously. We are obliged to our children and to future generations to examine it ourselves and to establish for ourselves, what the truth is. We are responsible to demand a clarification from our governments. Their proposition that the information “is available” is not good enough. They must present the information in a manner understandable by all people. They must ensure that people know what is happening, just as they ensure that drivers know the traffic rules.

(Note: For more information on the basic facts on global warming and what we have to do about it, please, see https://optimisingdemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/global-warming-facts-and-assessment-compilation-february-2014-optimizingdemocracy.pdf)

Copying the litigation in other countries

One prime disadvantage of the case brought forward in the U.S. is that it is in fact only brought forward in the U.S. Even if the U.S. are a major contributor to CO² pollution of the atmosphere, they are by no means the only ones. [6]All people and countries on earth need to co-operate in stopping global warming and the destruction of the earth. Organizations working to stop global warming in any nation should consider following the example of the young people who are suing the U.S. government, so that necessary actions are not delayed in any country.

The effectiveness of the litigation

While the litigation, while raising public awareness, and moving the policy issue to the top of our agenda are steps of prime relevance to protect the earth against the risks of global warming, we should be aware that the litigation will not in itself achieve that effective policies are put into place. Whatever the outcome of the litigation will be, we still need effective policy making systems to design and to implement the best policies we can only conceive.

One fundamental problem, which the case seems to suffer from and which delays an adequate outcome, is that the issue is being squeezed into a set of legal concepts partly deriving from Roman and medieval times[7]. Yet never before in the history of mankind has the earth been at stake. Old legal concepts, it appears, cannot do justice to such an existential issue of a new kind and of completely new dimensions. Allowing a solution to be slowed down by a discussion of all kinds of legal aspects, such as whether dealing with the atmosphere as a public trust domain is a case of state or federal law, appears to even be inadequate given that allegedly the fate of the earth is at stake and delaying suitable measures to protect it will make saving the earth more and more difficult.

Does it exist, our obligation to protect the earth?

Since the whole issue is novel and of unprecedented character we should perhaps use common sense to guide our decision making on the case, rather than relying on pre-cast historic legal concepts. If we think in problem solving-oriented, constructive terms, the prime question to answer is likely to be: Are we obliged to protect the earth for future generations or not? Even if a court should decide that such an obligation exists for reasons of the law, the success of a national and global program to stop global warming will depend on whether the wider public also subscribes to the duty to protect the earth.

In conversations many people, even if they might have grown up children and become grandparents in a few years, give in to the perception that it could well already be too late to take co-ordinated action, that the support for any program would probably not be wide enough and that, looking at the history of the earth, it might rather be a normal process for a species like man to become extinct. In accepting these as “unalterable developments” they ignore that the destruction of the earth will be a long disastrous process for the nine billion people forecast to live on the globe in the near future. To convince wider society that we indeed must protect the earth and that as a consequence a substantial change in our style of living is necessary, will require outstanding leadership, even if the outcome of the litigation should confirm such an obligation.

A next question to answer will be, which priority policies to stop global warming must have in relation to all other policy issues. The answer to be suggested by common sense will with all likelihood be: The highest priority, since maintaining the earth is the pre-condition for any life and activities on earth. All other policy issues, even those of maintaining jobs and providing good health care are of adjunct, secondary importance compared to protecting the earth, it cannot be the other way around. That is what our governments do not seem to realize and this is one reason why this court case is so relevant. (The scientists supporting the case highlight that efforts to stop global warming will not necessarily hamper economic development, but is actually likely to create jobs. Stopping emissions will protect the health of human beings.)

As the judge dismissing the case in the first instance points out, however, and rightly so: Courts cannot decide what the best action in a specific policy issue such as global warming is.[8] What a court could possibly do is to enforce that governments follow a certain “governance code” in policy making, prescriptions on best-practice processes and procedures in policy making. But then such a code would have to exist and it would have to contain a set of regulations suited to lead to effective policy making.[9]

Even if researchers like James Hansen are convinced that certain steps are urgently necessary to stop global warming, they will concede that a government must adhere to certain procedural standards: Government must examine and confirm the nature, the magnitude, and the urgency of the problem, it must – to start with – establish a consensus on the obligation to preserve the globe in the nation, it must identify the very best strategy against global warming – one which as a secondary condition does not stop the functioning of our economies and societies. Government also must have or establish the capacity to implement these strategies as effectively and efficiently as only possible.

In the end, the plaintiffs can at best expect that the Court of Appeal decides that there exist justified grave concerns that the world is at risk from global warming and that it orders the government to assess the matter and to take the necessary steps to protect the earth as soon as possible. The scientists cannot presume or demand that the government and its responsible agency comes to the same results as they did. But if they have worked correctly and if the government establishes the best decision and policy making capacities, then the result should be the same, at least roughly.

The parameters deciding on the success of the initiative

What is necessary then to ensure that government policy making is “as effective and efficient” as only conceivable in the fight against global warming and that it arrives at the best policies in the shortest time frame possible?

We suggest the first overall precondition for arriving at optimal measures against the threat of global warming are optimal decision and policy making processes in the overall policy making system.

The establishment and implementation of processes of such prime quality depends on:

Optimal know-how
The optimal qualification of policy makers
The motivation of policy makers to exclusively serve the common good or public well-being (or: the exclusive focus of policy makers on the common good)
The power of policy makers to implement policies serving the common good.
The quality of control over the policy making processes by the stakeholders, by wider society.
The resources available for policy making (design and implementation).

As we said these observations will be of the highest relevance for the parties suing for an injunction to make the government design and implement the policies required to stop the destruction of the earth: Only if the mentioned parameters are in place will the government have the necessary qualities to cope with global warming effectively. The stakeholders interested in protecting the earth including the persons bringing the court case against the US government forward must ensure that the policy making bodies have those qualities. Otherwise their endeavors will not generate the required success.

Qualification of politicians and strategy making competencies

One central aspect on which we, as citizens, are just too lenient is that our governments and politicians may simply lack the required qualification and strategy making competencies to manage a complex policy issue like global warming appropriately.

The following statement from an official report by UK parliamentarians examining the strategy making capacity of the British government in the year 2012 articulates those crucial deficits lucidly and even with express reference to climate change (we have underlined the most critical passages) [10]:

“We have little confidence that Government policies are informed by a clear, coherent strategic approach, itself informed by a coherent assessment of the public’s aspirations and their perceptions of the national interest. The Cabinet and its committees are made accountable for decisions, but there remains a critical unfulfilled role at the centre of Government in coordinating and reconciling priorities, to ensure that long-term and short-term goals are coherent across departments. Policy decisions are made for short-term reasons, little reflecting the longer-term interests of the nation. This has led to mistakes which are becoming evident in such areas as the Strategic Defence and Security Review (carrier policy), energy (electricity generation and renewables) and climate change…”

The statement could well have been written by parliamentarians in any democratic nation, simply because fundamental processes and structures are similar in all democracies and lead to comparable outcomes. The fact that we, as citizens, accept deficits in the quality of policy making processes like these and the lack of qualification of the people establishing those processes is one cause which could lead to the destruction of the earth.

Motivation, Focus, and Power

The “motivation”, the exclusive “focus” of people involved in the policy making process on the common good is of equal relevance for effective policy making against global warming and in other policy areas. What prevents politicians in democracies from directing their actions to the well-being of wider society may be the desire for maintenance of power, the looking-out for votes and voter reaction, and as a consequence the concentration on more noticeable issues of more immediate relevance to society. Also career considerations or personal interests will distract politicians from focusing on the common good and, of course, corruption and nepotism are detrimental issues in many democracies, diluting or even destroying the effectiveness of policy making for the common good.

Furthermore politicians must not only have the capacity and the motivation to work for the common good, but also the power to implement optimal policies. Everybody behind the litigation will be aware that there are gigantic and even understandable global corporate interests against stopping the burning of fossil fuels. Those interests will do everything possible to prevent policy makers pursuing what must be their primary goal in the interests of this and future generations, the protection of the earth, so future generations can live on it. As odd as it may sound, government may even have to examine possibilities for compensating investors in fossil fuels, to bring them to support policies to protect the earth. Those investors might claim to have invested “in good faith”.

The decisive role of control by citizens

The support of the courts will in any case not be sufficient to overcome such inertia or outright resistance against policies to protect the earth. As Lincoln states, ultimately democracy is government also by the citizens. In order to ensure that our policy makers focus on the common good and have the power to implement measures serving the common good, wider society must both control and support its politicians, it must endow the power of wider society on them so politicians can withstand the pressure of select interest groups.

We as members of society cannot rely on our representatives in parliament to exert effective control over our policy makers on our behalf. One key statement in the report on the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico was: “In short, it took a catastrophe to attract congressional attention.”[11] What this statement means is that also our parliamentarians do not have an effective process to identify risks for the well-being of society and to ensure government policy making is effective.

The persons and organizations behind the court case on global warming do not only want to win the court case, ultimately they want to ensure the best measures are taken by the government to stop global warming in the shortest time frame possible. They will only arrive at this goal, if they themselves exert constant and effective control over the entire policy making process required to protect the earth and if they rally as much support as possible behind their case.

Procuring the necessary resources for effective policy making

Governments finally often fail in their policy making because they do not have the resources necessary for effective policy making.

As the report of the commission inquiring the causes for the Deep Horizon oil disaster in the Gulf found out, this was the case for the government agency supposed to control deep sea oil drilling and one reason why the disaster happened. The report states: “But over time, (the agency) increasingly fell short in its ability to oversee the offshore oil industry. The agency’s resources did not keep pace with industry expansion into deeper waters and industry’s related reliance on more demanding technologies.“ [12]

Many people in the U.S. aim to reduce the role of the state by “starving the beast”. This is the wrong approach, if we want to preserve public wellbeing, as the Deepwater Horizon case demonstrates.

In a time when technologies in many areas advance and have more and more decisive effects on our environment and lives, in a world of now seven billion people with ever more complex policy issues it is essential that our policy systems have the resources to fulfill their tasks. Rather than reducing the funds we provide to our public policy systems we may have to enhance them. The people driving the court case and generally anybody interested in stopping global warming must aim to ensure that government has the resources and the capacities necessary to design and implement the required policies to stop the destruction of the earth.

Other existential threats to the well-being of future generations

As necessary and valuable as efforts like the court case against the U.S. government on the issue of global warming are, the problem is: They neglect that other issues of “existential” character threaten the well-being of this and future generations as well. This will be of particular relevance also for organizations aiming to protect the rights and the future of children such as the plaintiffs in the court case, Kids vs Global Warming and Wild Earth Guardians.

In his book “The Future”, published in the beginning of 2013, Al Gore presents a substantial discussion of a number of present critical threats to humanity[13]. One of them appears to be at least of the same magnitude as global warming: With the help of biogenetics and largely unnoticed from the wider public we, humanity, are actually in the process of changing life on earth as we know it, human and animal life.[14] Biogenetics will enable us to extinguish many hereditary genetic diseases. At the same time biogenetics will soon allow us to create designer-babies, whose traits parents or, perhaps at some point in time, society will select. We might turn to throwing away millions of embryos with genetic defects. At the same time we are also changing the life of other creatures: Does humanity really need goats which produce spider silk? Are we going to be able to control the new technologies and their effects? Aren’t we going to create chaos, if we interfere into even the design of life?

As Al Gore points out, society across the globe does not discuss these questions of existential relevance, we lack adequate leadership by our political leaders and we don’t steer. In our terms: We lack effective policy making systems.

A further threat to humanity is the increasing surveillance by governments and corporations. On the internet, “I read and I am being read”, formulates the editor of a leading German newspaper[15]. More and more observers see us approaching the scenarios of “Brave New World” and of “1984”, the scenarios described by Huxley and Orwell in which human beings have no freedom whatsoever, in which they are subjects controlled, manipulated, and perhaps even bred by their governments.

A next problem is that advancing technology such as robotisation and 3D-printing combined with the global transferability of production via the internet threatens to cause the loss of more and more jobs also in industrialized countries and even already in newly developed countries like China.

Not only Al Gore highlights the growing imbalances in wealth, income distribution, and the outright poverty also in the West as a result of these developments as well as the ensuing risks to peace and social stability. In 2009, twenty years after the Berlin wall came down and in the light of the increasing disparities between the rich and the poor in the world, Mikhail Gorbachev already demanded that we need to redefine global democratic capitalism, if we want to avoid social destabilization, conflicts, and terrorism.[16] The renowned British-American historian Tony Judt warns that the increasing economic and social imbalances would cause collapse and brutality in our societies resembling the break-down of societies before WW II.[17] In his 2010 book ”Time for Outrage” (“Indignez-vous” in the original French title) and at already 93 years of age, Stephane Hessel, a WWII concentration camp prisoner, French resistance fighter and former diplomat also expressed his distress with the new extreme discrepancies between the poor and rich and the resulting threats for peace and democracy. In the light of the failure of the leaders in governments and society to cope with these issues he called on the young people of the earth to take charge of the creation of just and social democracies.[18]

Another concern for our earth is that we are already severely over-exploiting the resources of our planet with a population of seven billion estimated to approach nine billion by the middle of the century. Al Gore mentions that even such basic critical resources as water and topsoil, necessary for securing food for the global population, are getting sparse and increasingly become a cause for migration and conflicts, problems which will be exacerbated manifold, if we do not stop global warming. We are also polluting our globe, allowing for example that carpets of plastic garbage the size of parts of Europe are already covering our oceans. Fragments of this garbage even threaten to enter the human food chain

While all of these developments are going on, global power is “in the balance” as Al Gore emphasizes. There presently is no clear leadership structure in the world anymore. Generally, nation states are more and more powerless against large global corporations. Furthermore their influence is diluted by ethnic allegiances of people exceeding the boundaries of nations.

The need for policy making systems of the highest degree of effectiveness and efficiency

Fighting against global warming probably must have the highest priority among all the urgent policy concerns humanity is facing at present. But if we want to maintain the globe, humanity, and our societies in a sound and healthy state for future generations, if we want to maintain peace and well-being in the world, we have to address all the issues threatening the globe and humanity effectively at the same time. Directing energy exclusively to global warming appears as if we wanted to plug one large hole of a leaking barrel, while water comes running out of six or more other big holes. Keeping the water in the barrel requires a comprehensive and highly coordinated effort.

It is obvious that we cannot address all the pressing issues in the world of today by first having to go to court on each issue. The process takes too much time and, as the scientist Hansen points out, comes also too late: Had our governments initiated reductions of CO² emissions already in 2005 decreases of only 3.5% per annum would have been necessary to maintain global temperatures at present levels, now we need to reduce CO² emissions already by 6% per annum. If we wait until 2020 a reduction of 15% per annum will be necessary.[19] What this would mean for our economies we can perhaps grasp, if we imagine we personally would suddenly have to put aside regularly 15% rather than 3.5% of our monthly income for some expense which we did not anticipate at all.

Wasting time can “cost the earth”, the stability of our nations, and millions of human lives. Instead of society having to engage in a court case against their governments possibly over various competing policy issues, so they take long overdue action, our policy making systems need to be so effective that they take the necessary steps by themselves for each policy issue at the earliest opportunity. We as citizens must find ways and means to ascertain that our governments operate so effectively.

An initiative for optimizing the policy making system in the U.S.

All in all our world and humanity of now seven billion people appears to enter a new age with technological possibilities and opportunities, with systemic challenges and threats of a new dimension of interdependence and complexity –while many old problems such a large scale poverty and hunger also persist.

A new age, a new situation requires from us to rethink our conceptions and patterns of behavior. Our only chance to tackle the various existential problems threatening humanity simultaneously at the present time is by reviewing the capacities of our policy making systems and by ensuring that they perform at the highest degree of effectiveness and efficiency possible.

So far most of us living in democracies have taken this advantage for granted. So far we have relied on our governments to handle public policy for us. What the many failures of our governments show us, is that we cannot afford to be so indifferent about government policy making anymore.

Our ancestors fought with their lives for freedom and democracy. We, the citizens of, democratic countries must realize again that living in a democracy is a privilege and an obligation and that we personally, not our governments, are responsible for maintaining the earth. We personally are responsible to ensure that the way we manage our society and our world is effective. We as citizens are responsible to establish effective governments and policy making systems.

To ensure that our governments cope effectively with the challenges and threats of our time, we as citizens need to be effective ourselves. We need to create a strong joint citizens’ initiative to ensure the effectiveness of our policy making system across the board. In the U.S. such an initiative might be called “Optimizing Democracy USA”. Of course, similar organizations are required in all democratic nations. Their task is to make sure that our policy systems are equipped with the parameters necessary for their effectiveness.

Let us come back to the court case against the U.S. government. If we realize, that in a democracy, we the people are ourselves responsible for governing the world, it follows that it is ultimately us, ourselves, who should be sued, not our governments, if we fail to protect the earth. Our politicians think, are trained, and operate within the confines of the political system we (or our ancestors) have established. If the policy making system doesn’t generate the results we require, we are obliged to look for ways to make it able to cope with the challenges and threats of our time.

Global warming and the other policy issues mentioned are of the greatest urgency. If we want to guarantee the well-being of and protect the earth for future generations, we cannot delay our efforts in making our governments and policy making systems as effective as required.

[1] http://ourchildrenstrust.org/US/Federal-Lawsuit

[2]James Hansen, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Frank Ackerman, David J. Beerling, Paul J. Hearty, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Shi-Ling Hsu, Camille Parmesan, Johan Rockstrom, Eelco J. Rohling, Jeffrey Sachs, Pete Smith, Konrad Steffen, Lise Van Susteren, Karina von Schuckmann, James C. Zachos, Assessing ‘‘Dangerous Climate Change’’: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature, PLOS ONE | http://www.plosone.org 1 December 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 12 | e81648

[3] Christina Figueres, Head of the IPCC, formulated at the end of the international Climate Conference in Warsaw in November 2013: “The conference has brought us closer …to an agreement in 2015. It does not put us on track for a 2 degree world.” cf. UNFCCC closing press briefing Saturday 23 November at http://unfccc.int/meetings/warsaw_nov_2013/meeting/7649.php.

It is furthermore disconcerting that scientists put the probability of achieving the temperature limit of 2ᵒC with the current strategy of limiting the total CO² content in the atmosphere to 1000 Billion tons at somewhere between 66 and 100%. (cf. IPCC WGI AR5 SPM p. 20). In other words it is even by no means certain that the temperature target would be achieved with the current strategy, even if the international community were to ultimately comply with it. The current strategy could well lead to even higher temperatures than an increase of 2ᵒC. A more conservative approach as suggested by Hansen appears justified for a number of critical aspects.

[4] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis; http://climate2013.org/

[5] By the end of this century The IPCC expects a maximum sea level increase of .82 m (top of the “likely range” in the worst case scenario), at, however, increasing rates of sea levels rise. (IPCC, WG1 AR5, SMP. p 20, p. 25, p.35). The IPCC writes: “There is high confidence that sustained warming greater than some threshold would lead to the near-complete loss of the Greenland ice shield over a millennium or more, causing a global mean sea level rise of up to 7 m”. The IPCC also states there is high confidence that sea levels in the Pliocene with temperatures between 2ᵒC to 3.5ᵒC higher than pre-industrial levels did not exceed 20m above present.(WG1 5AR, Fin.Draft, Techn. Summary p. 12). Hansen et alii state that in the Eemian, when temperatures were about 2ᵒC higher than in the Holocene, the age of mankind, sea levels were about 9 meters higher, in the Pliocene, with temperatures about 3ᵒC warmer, sea levels were about 15-25 meters higher than today. As Hansen points out, the problem is less to assess which sea levels ultimately correlate with which temperature, but rather at which speed sea levels adapt to higher temperatures. He writes that some researchers suggest a multi-meter sea level rise could already occur this century. (Hansen at alii, p. 6).

[6] According to joint research by the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and the Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) China emitted 29% of the global CO²emissions in 2012 (fossil fuel and cement production)m the U.S. 15%, the EU 27 11%, India 6%, the Russian Federation 5%, and Japan 4%. (Source: Trends in global CO² emissions: 2013 Report, p.8). The largest contributors to CO² emissions per capita are: Luxembourg 21. 75 tons/cap, Australia, 18.77, Kazakhstan 16.44, the U.S. 16.36, EU(15) 7.49, China 7.09 (Source European Emission Database EDGAR http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts_pc1990-2012&sort=des9

[7] United States District Court For The Court of Columbia, Memorandum Opinion, Case 1:11-cv-02235-RLW Document 172 Filed 05/31/12, p.3

[8]Ibid., p.10

[9] The fact that a court case is necessary to increase the attention of the government to a matter of existential relevance for the earth like global warming and to point out that a present policy might destroy the earth, appears to indicate that such an effective governance code does not exist.

[10] House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee, Strategic thinking in Government: without National Strategy, can viable Government strategy emerge?,Twenty Fourth Report of Session 2010–12, Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence, p.3

[11] Deep Water The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling, Report to the President, National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, January 2011, p. 289

[12] Ibid., p.68

[13] Al Gore, The Future, Random House 2013

[14] Ibid., p. 204

[15] Frank Schirrmacher, Politik im Datenzeitalter: Was die SPD verschläft (Politics in the age of data: What the social democrats fail to notice ), Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 25 September 2013

[16] Mikhail Gorbachev, The Berlin wall had to fall, but today’s world is no fairer, The Guardian, 30 October 2009

[17] Tony Judt, I’ll fares the land, A treatise on our present discontents, Allen Lane, 2010

[18] Stéphane Hessel, Time For Outrage, (French Original: “Indignez Vous!”), 2010, Indigène Éditons, Montpellier

[19] James Hansen at alii, 2013, p. 10